Evaluation of earth system model and atmospheric inversion using total column CO2 observations from GOSAT and OCO-2
-
Published:2021-04-14
Issue:1
Volume:8
Page:
-
ISSN:2197-4284
-
Container-title:Progress in Earth and Planetary Science
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Prog Earth Planet Sci
Author:
Patra Prabir K.ORCID, Hajima Tomohiro, Saito Ryu, Chandra Naveen, Yoshida Yukio, Ichii Kazuhito, Kawamiya Michio, Kondo Masayuki, Ito Akihiko, Crisp David
Abstract
AbstractThe measurements of one of the major greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), are being made using dedicated satellite remote sensing since the launch of the greenhouse gases observing satellite (GOSAT) by a three-way partnership between the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), the Ministry of Environment (MoE) and the National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2). In the past 10 years, estimation of CO2 fluxes from land and ocean using the earth system models (ESMs) and inverse modelling of in situ atmospheric CO2 data have also made significant progress. We attempt, for the first time, to evaluate the CO2 fluxes simulated by an earth system model (MIROC-ES2L) and the fluxes estimated by an inverse model (MIROC4-Inv) using in situ data by comparing with GOSAT and OCO-2 observations. Both MIROC-ES2L and MIROC4-Inv fluxes are used in the MIROC4-atmospheric chemistry transport model (referred to as ACTM_ES2LF and ACTM_InvF, respectively) for calculating total column CO2 mole fraction (XCO2) that are sampled at the time and location of the satellite measurements. Both the ACTM simulations agreed well with the GOSAT and OCO-2 satellite observations, within 2 ppm for the spatial maps and time evolutions of the zonal mean distributions. Our results suggest that the inverse model using in situ data is more consistent with the OCO-2 retrievals, compared with those of the GOSAT XCO2 data due to the higher accuracy of the former. This suggests that the MIROC4-Inv fluxes are of sufficient quality to evaluate MIROC-ES2L simulated fluxes. The ACTM_ES2LF simulation shows a slightly weaker seasonal cycle for the meridional profiles of CO2 fluxes, compared with that from the ACTM_InvF. This difference is revealed by greater XCO2 differences for ACTM_ES2LF vs GOSAT, compared with those of ACTM_InvF vs GOSAT. Using remote sensing–based global products of leaf area index (LAI) and gross primary productivity (GPP) over land, we show a weaker sensitivity of MIROC-ES2L biospheric activities to the weather and climate in the tropical regions. Our results clearly suggest the usefulness of XCO2 measurements by satellite remote sensing for evaluation of large-scale ESMs, which so far remained untested by the sparse in situ data.
Funder
Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency of Japan
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Earth and Planetary Sciences
Reference74 articles.
1. Ainsworth EA, Rogers A (2007) The response of photosynthesis and stomatal conductance to rising [CO 2 ]: mechanisms and environmental interactions. Plant Cell Environ 30(3):258–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2007.01641.x 2. Anav A, Friedlingstein P, Beer C, Ciais P, Harper A, Jones C, Murray-Tortarolo G, Papale D, Parazoo NC, Peylin P, Piao S, Sitch S, Viovy N, Wiltshire A, Zhao M (2015) Spatiotemporal patterns of terrestrial gross primary production: a review. Rev Geophys 53(3):785–818. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015RG000483 3. Andres RJ, Boden TA, Bréon F-M, Ciais P, Davis S, Erickson D, Gregg JS, Jacobson A, Marland G, Miller J, Oda T, Olivier JGJ, Raupach MR, Rayner P, Treanton K (2012) A synthesis of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel combustion. Biogeosciences 9(5):1845–1871. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-9-1845-2012 4. Arora V, Katavouta A, Williams RG, Jones C, Brovkin V, Friedlingstein P, Schwinger J, Bopp L, Boucher O, Cadule P, Chamberlain MA (2019) Carbon-concentration and carbon-climate feedbacks in CMIP6 models, and their comparison to CMIP5 models. Biogeosci Discuss. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2019-473 5. Arora VK, Katavouta A, Williams RG, Jones CD, Brovkin V, Friedlingstein P, Schwinger J, Bopp L, Boucher O, Cadule P, Chamberlain MA, Christian JR, Delire C, Fisher RA, Hajima T, Ilyina T, Joetzjer E, Kawamiya M, Koven CD, Krasting JP, Law RM, Lawrence DM, Lenton A, Lindsay K, Pongratz J, Raddatz T, Séférian R, Tachiiri K, Tjiputra JF, Wiltshire A, Wu T, Ziehn T (2020) Carbon–concentration and carbon–climate feedbacks in CMIP6 models and their comparison to CMIP5 models. Biogeosciences 17(16):4173–4222. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-4173-2020
Cited by
12 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|